On 02/21, Gregory Price wrote:
>
> +struct ptrace_sud_config {
> + __u8 mode;
> + __u8 pad[7];
^^^^^^
Why?
> +int syscall_user_dispatch_get_config(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long size,
> + void __user *data)
> +{
> + struct syscall_user_dispatch *sd = &task->syscall_dispatch;
> + struct ptrace_sud_config config;
> + if (size != sizeof(struct ptrace_sud_config))
> + return -EINVAL;
Andrei, do we really need this check?
> +
> + if (test_task_syscall_work(task, SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH))
> + config.mode = PR_SYS_DISPATCH_ON;
> + else
> + config.mode = PR_SYS_DISPATCH_OFF;
> +
> + config.offset = sd->offset;
> + config.len = sd->len;
> + config.selector = (__u64)sd->selector;
As the kernel test robot reports, this is not -Wpointer-to-int-cast friendly.
Please use uintptr_t. See for example ptrace_get_rseq_configuration(). Same
for syscall_user_dispatch_set_config().
> + if (copy_to_user(data, &config, sizeof(config))) {
This leaks info in (uninitialized) config.pad[]. You can probably simply make
config.mode __u64 as well.
Minor, but sizeof(struct ptrace_sud_config) above vs this sizeof(config)) doesn't
look consistent to me...
> +static int sys_ptrace(int request, pid_t pid, void *addr, void *data)
> +{
> + return syscall(SYS_ptrace, request, pid, addr, data);
> +}
Why can't you simply use ptrace() ?
Oleg.
